Ravindra vs State of Up through Principal Secretary ( Home) — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ravindra vs State of Up through Principal Secretary ( Home) — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Ravindra: release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; in-person presence before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail). Observations in the bail order not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion based on witness testimony.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ravindra, accused in Case Crime No. 475 of 2024 under Sections 87 and 64, B.N.S. 2023, Police Station T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, should be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court's approach in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, the Court avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of merits; a prima facie satisfaction of the case is needed and is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the submissions of counsel, the evidence on record and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Key takeaways

Release ordered on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, sureties to be verified before the release order, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence; personal presence before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S., deliberate absence being treatable as abuse of bail liberty; and breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), order dated 19.2.2025 — Bail granted. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3103 of 2025: applicant Ravindra, accused in Case Crime No. 475 of 2024, Police Station T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, under Sections 87 and 64, B.N.S. 2023 (prosecution alleges enticement of the informant's sister on 23.11.2024; gang-rape allegations levelled against the applicant and one Nishu), in custody since 13.12.2024. Defence contentions noted: FIR delayed by about 17 days without explanation; victim (stated age 21) a consenting party; her Section 183 B.N.S.S. statement differs from the FIR; no medical corroboration; no criminal history. Relying on Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (AIR 1980 SC 785) and taking into consideration Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), the Court held that prima facie satisfaction — not exhaustive exploration of merits — suffices, and without expressing any opinion on the merits found the applicant had made out a case for bail. Bail allowed on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be verified pre-release), with conditions barring evidence-tampering, requiring presence at case-opening, charge-framing and Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. stages, breach being a ground for cancellation; order observations expressly not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24080

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3103 of 2025

Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Principal Secretary ( Home) Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Bhagat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Chandan Bhagat, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.475 of 2024, under Sections 87, 64 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the sister of the informant on 23.11.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about 17 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. is altogether different to the FIR. It is true that the applicant is a married person, but the victim herself is a consenting party as her age is 21 years, although she has levelled the allegations of gang-rape against the applicant and one Nishu. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Ravindra , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 (Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad